STABILIZATION OF FINANCIAL SYSTEMS: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MONETARY POLICIES OF THE CENTRAL BANKS

The paper deals with issues of ensuring stability of foreign and domestic financial systems. The effectiveness of monetary tools used by the central banks to restore economic development has been analyzed. The resulting estimates and expectations, with emphasis on necessary stabilization measures in Ukraine, have been substantiated.

Introduction. Stabilization of the financial systems under recovery of capital formation in the real sector of the economy is determined by the effectiveness of means to support the business activity, and in particular, the financing in the loan markets. For the time being, this is one of the main tasks of the governments and central banks around the world. The above requires strengthening the regulatory monitoring framework, consistent valuation and revaluation of financial assets, the gap between yields of financial transactions and transactions in the sphere of non-financial corporations, the expected utility and return of the funds advanced.

Lessons of the latter crisis have once again demonstrated the collapse of speculative economy fed through unsecured credit expansion. Risks of new threats while maintaining critical development imbalances remain significant (probability of a "second wave" of the crisis, the budget problems of the countries from the South of the Euro zone). Published in late 2012 OECD forecast was disappointing, characterizing the trend of the world economy as a downward one (Parussini, G., Hannon, P. (2012). That is why the current "financial instability means that the economic system, in varying degrees, allows for reproduction of crises" (Colander D. and other (2010). Particularly acute crisis manifested itself in the banking sector in many countries. According to the IMF estimates, the volume of bank assets write-offs only during the period 2007-2010 amounted to US.2 trillions (IMF (2010). Despite the still unstable signs of the crisis overcoming, "the basic questions remain as to how banks operate and how they have been regulated" (White,W.R. (2011).

Analysis of the research and publications. Exploring the spectrum of questions concerning financial and, especially banking, systems’ stabilization, belongs to constantly relevant and popular issues. Numerous publications of foreign and domestic economists are evidence of this. However, the full list of names of researchers, which is replenished daily, can hardly be exhaustive within the presented material. However, there is a need to study the peculiarities of the financial system in Ukraine under still unresolved consequences of the recent crisis and the new role of central banks in this process.

In view of these, the object and the aim of this researchare as follows: based on comparative analysis of the monetary policies implemented by the foreign central banks to identify trends and tools to stabilize the financial system of Ukraine.

Main results of the research. A distinct feature to support economic development in recent years is the implementation by the major central banks the soft monetary policy (stimulating monetary policy) that can be characterized by two key elements - a) holding low interest rates by the central banks to restore loans circulation and b) buying government securities by the central banks to finance the state budgets.

Stimulating monetary policy, among other levers of government regulations of recovery processes, plays a special role as the characteristics of circulation of money largely determine the rates and proportions of economic reproduction. “Central banks have responded to the crisis by providing funding in foreign and domestic currencies. Strategic indicators were reduced countercyclical ... “(BIS (2010а). Accordingly, there have been indicative changes in characteristics of credit operations of the central banks (through interest rate and credit channel of the transmission mechanism) and the redemption of assets in the open market (through the channel of asset prices).

The implementation of monetary policy of central banks of various countries in the 2008-2012 periods has common and distinctive features. The U.S. Federal Reserve System, during the crisis and initial recovery period, focused through monetary policy tools on easing the regulatory environment to encourage the development of the US economy. Such basic tools were the interest rate of the central bank and fixed income securities (mortgage and public) repurchase in the open market.

At the beginning of the crisis in 2008, the U.S. Federal Reserve System implemented the first program of quantitative easing QE1 in amount of US{SPAW EDITOR}.7 trillions, which was recognized as effective (when liquidity injections resulted in U.S. GDP growth up to 3.5% in 2009). However, after the deterioration of statistical data in the U.S. in 2010, the second program of quantitative easing, QE2 volume of $ 600 billions was started; its results were not so obvious comparing with the results of QE1. In 2011, the U.S. Federal Reserve System started so-called “twist operations” - the replacement of short-term bonds with securities of longer maturities in its balance.

As during 2011 - 2012 some signs of crisis in the U.S. and Europe were obvious and even deepen, a question on starting the third program of quantitative easing (QE3) arose; and it started in September 2012. The U.S. Fed, within QE3, prolonged expected period of low (almost zero) interest rates until mid-2015, and committed to purchase mortgage bonds in amount of up US billions monthly. Typical position of the U.S. Federal Reserve System is to provide significant freedom in issues of monetary control: “government interference in matters of monetary and credit policy of central banks is undesirable because it can cause further weakening economy and rising inflation” (Cbonds (2010).The Open Market Committee of the U.S. Federal Reserve System for a long time keeps base interest rate at a record low level - in the range 0.0% - 0.25% annually (from December 2008 to the present - January 2013). Program of debt securities repurchase were of regularly renewable nature. Largely it made possible to hold the base and other interest rates at the low level.

The monetary policy of the Bank of England is characterized by a low interest rate and support to programs of repurchase of government bonds as a part of the policy of quantitative easing. This policy also provides stimulating of business activity via corresponding monetary instruments.

In July 2012, the Bank of England increased its quantitative easing program, under which envisaged growth of reserves in the financial system to 375 billion pounds by purchasing government securities. At the same time, together with the government, it is envisaged to stimulate the banking sector on the condition that banks would more actively lend mortgages and other business projects.

Beginning March 2009 the Bank of England holds interest rate at 0.5% and it is not expected soon to tighten monetary policy in England.

Monetary policy of the Bank of Japan for a long time also remains soft. Since October 5, 2010, interest rate of the central bank has been set in the range 0 - 0.1% and remains unchanged as of January 2013. It is expected that the Bank of Japan will keep key interest rate almost zero in the future - given the existing insufficient demand in the country.

The use of such a monetary instrument as purchase of government obligations to encourage the development became more active in November 2010, when the Bank of Japan has allocated 5 trillions yen (more than US billions) for immediate purchase of government securities. In August 2011, Japan's central bank decided to increase the volume of the program of repurchase assets (government and corporate bonds) up to 50 trillions yen (US8 billions).

The European Central Bank (ECB) carries out regionally consolidated interest rate policy, purchases obligations of sovereign and other debtors, provides loans secured by bonds issued by countries-member of the Euro zone. However, the combination of levers of monetary and fiscal policy on economic dynamics is not always a compromise; that gave grounds to the ECB representative in November 2011 to declare that adaptation of monetary policy to the fiscal policy was unacceptable (Cbonds (2011). Представитель ЕЦБ Вайдманн: Приспособление денежно-кредитной политики под налогово-бюджетную должно прекратиться // www.cbonds.info). The ECB key interest rates remained at historic minimum level of 1% for almost two years from May 2009 to 7 April 2011, when the ECB raised it to 1.25%. However, a few months later - in early November 2011 the ECB key rate was again lowered to 1%, and from July 7, 2012 - to 0.75% due to poor economic conditions.

Dynamics of economic activity in the euro zone has been slowing down due to the tightening fiscal policy (as a consequence of the problems of the Southern euro zone - Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain - so-called peripheral group “PIIGS”). Stabilization of the financial state of the countries with problems in public finance through purchase of sovereign bonds (Program of support of the financial sector of the EU countries implemented within the framework of the EU-IMF plan, volume 750 billion euros) provided the necessary liquidity of markets in the Euro zone. The European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF), which funded support to Portugal and Ireland, during 2012 - the first half of 2013 gradually transformed into the Financial Stability Mechanism (MFS). The MFS has to replace the EFSF - as an option to replace temporary mechanism with permanent one.

Beginning May 10, 2010, the ECB intervened in markets of sovereign and corporate bonds of those countries where there have been high volatility of returns. Further on the ECB implemented a variety of tools to support liquidity. In 2012, when the situation in the markets of sovereign debt in peripheral euro zone countries obviously deteriorated, the ECB faced with a difficult dilemma: while it was necessary to continue to implement monetary anti-crisis measures, inflation risks increased.

The Central Bank of China (PBOC) devalued its currency in September 2008 and since then has kept the Yuan low against the U.S. dollar and a stable exchange rate against the euro, while maintaining a fixed proportion of sovereign bonds of EU countries in the portfolio of its international reserves.

Functioning of the world economy as a macro system is periodically accompanied by so-called “currency wars”, when exchange rate policies of some countries aimed to support their exports at the expense of balancing foreign economic interests. That is, both the U.S. and China are moving in the same direction. A new term has been created - Chimerica - a symbiosis of the first letters of the names of the two countries - China and America. However, there is here also a parallel with the word chimera.

The monetary policy of the Bank of Russia in 2010-2012 years directed at encouraging domestic demand through supporting the lending activity of banks and increasing the availability of financial resources for borrowers. At the same time, operations were carried to bind excessive liquidity in the banking system. In recent years, the refinancing rate of the Bank of Russia varied with intervals of 25 bps and since September 14, 2012 is 8.25%.

In Ukraine, the stabilization of the banking sector has been ensured by the NBU in framework of indicative changes of monetary and exchange rate policy. These changes, in turn, were conditioned by the processes in both external and domestic financial markets. Regulatory vector of the NBU actions during the crisis was intended to support liquidity in the banking system of Ukraine; i.e. when the anti-crisis monetary policy shifts reflected in activation of the refinancing mechanisms, curbing the outflow of funds outside the banking system with variable use of interventional tools, changes in reserve requirements and interest rate policy.

A discount rate, among set of the NBU’s interest rate tools, should play a more active role. Today the value of money in Ukraine is still mostly caused by the changing market conditions and risks, and to a lesser extent by the interest rate policy of the regulator. Therefore, changes in interest rate and refinancing rates in financial markets are not transformed directly and quickly into changes in rates on bank loans and deposits. Refinancing rate "... performs fiscal functions, goes after the market, rather than forming it" (Yershov, 2011). However, it is economic turmoil in recent years, and particularly the lessons of the financial crisis that demonstrated the need to enhance the role of interest rate policy: “the main channel of the money supply should be the refinancing of commercial banks and the main regulator - interest rate (refinancing rate)” (Glaz’ev, 2008).

The reason why the discount rate in Ukraine insufficiently serves as "a guide price of money" and is limitedly demonstrative indicator, lies in the peculiarities of the functioning of other segments of the financial market and the pricing of those assets. Thus, primarily this applies to opaque domestic securities markets (especially stock markets), resulting in the price of the asset little corresponding to their values. Under existing irrelevant information, price for stock assets actually is a "thing in itself" and does not reflect the potential investment value of the assets. It should be noted also that banking systems of around the world more widely use trading with participation of the central banks in the open market (i.e., foreign exchange interventions, repo agreements), where the role of interest rate policy is clearly subordinate.

Changes in the NBU discount rate in recent years geared toward the reduction of inflation risks, the need to encourage capital inflows into Ukraine and at the same time to curb its outflow. In general - to reduce the money supply and monetary constraints. However, money for many borrowers remains deficit due to their high cost, as businesses and households suffer from a lack of working capital.

Conclusions. Financial systems are constantly in need of crisis monitoring - and primarily preventive one, – which is in line with international practice (BIS (2010b). The growth of markets (including loan basis) must be supported by and balance with real savings rather than speculative multiplication of value of assets.

Despite the strengthening of relationships in the context of globalization and increased institutional role of international summits (e.g., in the form of G-20), it becomes clear that each country should independently overcome the crisis and to stimulate their economies according to their actual capabilities. Resource and institutional constraints of government regulation and recovery of financial markets (in terms of limits on funding stabilization programs by central banks at the expense of monetary resources and government budgetary resources while maintaining the disproportionate development of some euro zone countries under a single institutional framework of the EU) remain significant factors in the development of financial systems in various countries.

Obviously, the Anglo-American and continental (euro zone) financial models confirm to maintain their individual characteristics. Question of convergence of these models may not be comprehensive despite the increasingly widespread universalization of regulatory and business activities. Universal model of markets and banks showed the presence of clear warnings and restrictions of its operation since it bears the risks associated with the concentration of resources in a single financial center (conglomerate). Universal institutes’ presence is justified under the stable conditions and is risky during the crisis.

Ukraine needs not fragmentary but systemic reform of the financial sector in Ukraine as a whole, e.g. banking system, non-banking institutions and business infrastructure. Given the limitations of funding from external sources (but not only this), the main emphasis should be made on the development of the domestic market of financial and other resources of long maturity, including securities market. An activity of the institutional investors should go beyond mediation and get investment catalyzing signs. This is extremely necessary for the normalization of loan and investment cycle and protection of the financial system against external threats of destabilization.

Due to the fact that the price of money as a resource are formed taking into account the peculiarities of development of related segments of the financial market, Ukraine requires effective measures to improve the functioning of financial markets, including the stock market; in particular the transparent pricing of fund assets and disclosure of information on implementation of trade agreements.

Purchase of government bonds by central banks should be considered as an exceptional and not a permanent measure. Otherwise, risks of budget management are transferred to responsibilities of the central bank through monetization of the budget deficit. However, central banks cannot be fire creditors of the first instance - they are institutional lenders of the last resort.

Loose stimulating monetary policy needs to be balanced by tight fiscal policy. In other words, increasing the money supply through interest rate and loan channels of the transmission mechanism of monetary policy requires balancing the amount of money in terms of limiting the availability of funding through budget expenditures.

In Ukraine, resumed exports and stimulated and solvent domestic demand should be key factors in stabilizing the currency. This would let to adjust the existing imbalances in the balance of payments (in terms of peculiarities of its current account and capital account). Given the still limited funding from external sources (but not only this), the main emphasis should be on the development of domestic market of long-term financial resources. The effective resolution of monetary tasks is possible in the mainstream of improving macroeconomic indicators of economic development.

BIS (2010b). Financial stability: 10 questions and about seven answers: Speech delivered by Mr J. Caruana. General Manager of the BIS, at the 50th Anniversary Symposium of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Sydney, 9 February 2010).